chess, extra strength caplets.

So, what does it mean to study chess? I have see recommendations from people about good books to use to improve which consist of pages and pages of board positions in which you are to choose the best move. The correct move is listed in the back, but to my frustration, there is never any discussion as to why. Obviously, I am not an advanced enough player to understand why.

So, what does it mean to study chess? Ideally, I would like to improve from my current ~1150 rating (on chess.com) to 1500 or above?

There are plenty of books that talk about strategy - I just went to Barnes and Noble and poked through some of the books in the Chess section. The one I bought, which I think is excellent, is How to Reassess Your Chess by Silman. It's all about formulating a strategy based on exploiting your opponent's weaknesses while minimizing your own.

I've also gotten some good insight from Youtube videos breaking down games by Grandmasters. There are a bunch on there which talk about why they make the moves they do, which can help get an idea how to think like a better chess player.

Note: I'm certainly not an expert but I feel like I've been getting better by doing some of these things.

A number of us here have read The Amateur's Mind by Silman. It's along the same line as the one that Lord Crappington mentioned, but it specifically addresses the pitfalls that many amateurs fall into in terms of mindset and strategy.

It means playing it with a notebook next to you, much the same as with any other thing you wish to study.

Chess.com has a veritable wealth of training materials, among them commented games, tactics problems, and instructional videos. But the course I enjoyed most was Josh Waitzkin's step-by-step tutorials in Chessmaster IX (though I think the latest Chessmaster also has it). Problem-solution-explanation. Problem-solution-explanation. Over and over, from the most basic rules of chess up to advanced openings and positional play. Can't say I finished all of it, but what parts I did play really helped.

So, what does it mean to study chess? I have see recommendations from people about good books to use to improve which consist of pages and pages of board positions in which you are to choose the best move. The correct move is listed in the back, but to my frustration, there is never any discussion as to why. Obviously, I am not an advanced enough player to understand why.

So, what does it mean to study chess? Ideally, I would like to improve from my current ~1150 rating (on chess.com) to 1500 or above?

1. Tactics training. And more tactics training. And more. Chess.com has a good trainer, and chesstempo.com has one too. Train your brain to see patterns/potential.

2. Learn some openings. Buy a book on openings. I have MCO-14. It's pretty exhaustive, but doesn't discuss the openings in as much detail as I'd like. I've read that FCO is better for that.

Once you pick an opening for white, play it exclusively until you get good at knowing how it typically plays out. My current opening for white is the Fried Liver Attack. I know the "correct" moves at least 6-7 moves deep. For black, I play the Sicilian, which has much more variation and I'm not as well-versed in, but there's less room for error as well.

1. Tactics training. And more tactics training. And more. Chess.com has a good trainer, and chesstempo.com has one too. Train your brain to see patterns/potential.

Maybe I miss it, but frequently I don't see "why" the moves are the best one. In the daily chess puzzles, if its not blindingly obvious I just end up making moves until I stumble upon the "right" one. Today's puzzle, for example, is a mystery as to why the rook sacrifice is the winning move. It looks to me that I will, at best, exchange my other rook and lose another pawn and put my black bishop in serious jeopardy.

MobileOak wrote:

2. Learn some openings. Buy a book on openings. I have MCO-14. It's pretty exhaustive, but doesn't discuss the openings in as much detail as I'd like. I've read that FCO is better for that.

I had an MCO book 10+ years ago. I am sure its gone. What does the F stand for in FCO? In general, how are ebook versions of chess books. Are they worth getting? I found that the kindle version of a text book was a waste of money (tables and figures are static in size, making them impossible to read on my Nexus 7), so I am leery about flushing money down the toilet on chess books.

Sorry, meant to get to this sooner. I know I glanced at it earlier and didn't see anything obvious - it's always easier to critique a loss than a win.

++ I'm also having trouble because I felt like his opponent cramped his own position and moved into and stayed unnecessarily in a pin for no actual compensation.

That said, the first move that I objected to was 13 ... h6 instead of Rde8 (which does eventually get played, but it could've happened here) and then 16 ... h5 instead of cxb4 to win a pawn.

I wish I could contribute something deeper like Mathom wanted, but I think he played really and there doesn't look to be a whole lot there that's objectively wrong.

I played 13..h6 because I wanted to get a kingside attack going as quickly as possible. True, Rde8 would've brought the rook to the center with tempo, but sometimes the threat of a move is better than the actual move -- after playing ..h6 for example, he may have wasted a tempo protecting against Rde8, which would speed up my attack, or I could still play it later if he doesn't. I didn't think it was necessary to play immediately because of that.

As for 16..cxb4, I looked at that move, but didn't like the way my pawn structure would look in the resulting position, and assuming I would play 16..cxb4 17. cxb4 Nxb4, then 18. Bxb4 would pull my dark squared bishop off the diagonal I wanted it to be on, breaking the pin against his queen. Just in general, I liked the way my position looked after 16..h5, and thought it was worth forgoing picking up the pawn. Of course, had I seen the tactic that MobileOak pointed out after 19. Bxh5, I would've likely changed my mind about 16..h5.

Glad to see it on page 1 when I happened to be browsing GESC! Haven't played chess in a while...and probably won't any time soon (Fire Emblem sucking up all my strategy gaming/thinking time), but I love it when I have the time to get into it so pretty much just posting to keep this in my "my threads" list. Last time I played a lot was when Chess With Friends came out a while back on iPhone, just signed up for Chess.com and downloaded the app for when I get a hankering for chess again.

I'm looking forward to critique when I get around to playing cause I think I'm a decent player but have never done any chess study of any sort. Like for openings I basically have no consistent plan, at best I'd consider myself unorthodox or just completely random. I just kind of let the board develop (and defend myself if I feel the need), but I don't really form a strategy until I see something viable in whatever layout the board becomes. It's almost like I don't do too much thinking outside of making sure I don't kill myself up until then.

(Of course I haven't played in forever so when I start again I expect to get soundly trounced until I get back into the groove.)

1. Tactics training. And more tactics training. And more. Chess.com has a good trainer, and chesstempo.com has one too. Train your brain to see patterns/potential.

Maybe I miss it, but frequently I don't see "why" the moves are the best one. In the daily chess puzzles, if its not blindingly obvious I just end up making moves until I stumble upon the "right" one. Today's puzzle, for example, is a mystery as to why the rook sacrifice is the winning move. It looks to me that I will, at best, exchange my other rook and lose another pawn and put my black bishop in serious jeopardy.

The daily puzzles are puzzles as used in the tactics trainers as well, but MobileOak is referring to the actual tactics trainer section. If you are not signed up, you get to do 3 puzzles a day if I remember correctly.

The thing about the tactics trainer is that it adjusts the level of difficulty of the puzzles until it hits the ones you can solve. At which point, if you get one that you "can't" solve, it will be much more likely that once you see the solution it's a bit of a "duh" moment rather than "huh?".

People can suggest tags for the puzzles as well which show up once you have made your first attempt. These suggested tags will tell you what people who have done the puzzle before you think the intended lesson was. If you didn't get the solution, you can then either try again, or let it play the solution for you and together with the tags, this will show you the "why".

All in all, just the tactics trainer together with playing lots of games (in the manner MobileOak suggested - ie. pick a first move and stick with it to learn what is likely to happen and how best to react/progress), have helped me get my rating to the ~1500 range I am at right now. It is only now that I think I really need to start reading up if I want to progress further. Which is to say I probably could have gotten there quicker, but the tactics trainer does work.

I will say that doing your Tactics training on the chess.com iOS app is very much the "Why was that a good move?", especially that once you get it right, you get a modal dialog box blocking much of the board, so it's easy to not be able to see the board in the "correct" state to learn from it.

It means playing it with a notebook next to you, much the same as with any other thing you wish to study.

Ok, what does this mean. After I have won or lost a game I have a list of moves, but I don't have the intellectual capital to know what is a good move from a bad one. Yea! I got a checkmate! Did I win because I played a superior game or did I win because my blunders were not as bad as my opponents?

Apteris wrote:

Chess.com has a veritable wealth of training materials, among them commented games, tactics problems, and instructional videos. But the course I enjoyed most was Josh Waitzkin's step-by-step tutorials in Chessmaster IX (though I think the latest Chessmaster also has it). Problem-solution-explanation. Problem-solution-explanation. Over and over, from the most basic rules of chess up to advanced openings and positional play. Can't say I finished all of it, but what parts I did play really helped.

I will subscribe to chess.com, hopefully that will help. I hope the trainers will say why these are the best move. It looks like the Chessmaster franchise is dead. According to the website the last time the game was released was in 2007.

Ok, what does this mean. After I have won or lost a game I have a list of moves, but I don't have the intellectual capital to know what is a good move from a bad one. Yea! I got a checkmate! Did I win because I played a superior game or did I win because my blunders were not as bad as my opponents?

Actually, that part was a metaphor. It meant "play mindfully and make an effort to improve". I stole it from Day9, who advocates having and using a Starcraft notebook.

Where chess is concerned... I wouldn't want to give out too much advice, I'm just an average player myself. Computer analysis is helpful, but dry. But I do like when a computerised voice narrates to me "6. Nxc7 Blunder!" Helps me prepare for the rise of the machines.

TBH I too don't quite know how to improve at this point. I find myself looking at a board, wondering "what's the best tactical move right now" and drawing a blank.

Quote:

I will subscribe to chess.com, hopefully that will help. I hope the trainers will say why these are the best move. It looks like the Chessmaster franchise is dead. According to the website the last time the game was released was in 2007.

Please note, I haven't subscribed to chess.com myself. My post above was an fyi, not an endorsement.

I will subscribe to chess.com, hopefully that will help. I hope the trainers will say why these are the best move.

They won't. Try chesstempo.com first, it's free (and much less annoying). The end result will usually be obvious - either you'll be up in material, you'll have achieved checkmate, or in some of the more esoteric ones, you'll have a better position. The 3 problems a day chess.com gives isn't enough. When I do sessions, I usually work on at least 20 problems.

4. While castling in general is a great idea, you can afford to delay it a bit to force your opponent to keep guessing.

5.Ba4 - Keeping the Knight pinned really isn't worth it. Either take the Knight, or retreat to a safer square, such as e2. This is the move that essentially lost you your bishop later.

7.d3 - If you study the Sicilian, d4 is a much more common move. Even now, doing d4 is probably not enough to save your Bishop, but it's there to prevent the c-pawn from becoming the problem it becomes in your game.

8.h3 - Weakening your King's 3-pawn structure is generally a bad idea. In this case, with the Bishop threatening your Knight really only does 2 things - pins the knight, and also pins the queen, since moving the Queen means capturing the bishop with your g-pawn. But you still have several pieces to deploy, there's really no rush to move the Bishop yet. Better would have been to deploy your knight or bishop who are still on the home row.

Just arrived from the tournament thread. We have a separate chess thread. Why didn't I know this?Anyways, if anyone wants a game on chess.com, hit me up - I can be found here. Rating at time of writing is 1448, though I'll play anyone who challenges.

This is where you are in a game and your opponent resigns and then immediately issues a rematch request. It many times follows a blunder by the opponent that they feel will result in a loss. I get that. You made a mistake and want to try to play a mistake free game, but hey, it's part of the game, Just ask Bill Buckner. Resign away if you want. The rematch request though is something I don't always want to do.

For Chess.com friends (or Ars friends) I have no issue, though with random matches I sometimes just don't want to bother playing the same person again. IS it bad form to not accept a rematch request?

If I make a blunder bad enough that I think it'll cost me the game, I will definitely resign (say, blundering away my Queen). No point in continuing a most likely lost game. That's why resignation exists in the first place and why it still counts against your rating. I'll also always issue rematch requests to friends and anyone who I feel gave me a particularly good matchup. Definitely not bad form to reject the request though.

This is where you are in a game and your opponent resigns and then immediately issues a rematch request. It many times follows a blunder by the opponent that they feel will result in a loss. I get that. You made a mistake and want to try to play a mistake free game, but hey, it's part of the game, Just ask Bill Buckner. Resign away if you want. The rematch request though is something I don't always want to do.

For Chess.com friends (or Ars friends) I have no issue, though with random matches I sometimes just don't want to bother playing the same person again. IS it bad form to not accept a rematch request?

I usually resign lost positions. If down just a minor piece, maybe play on for awhile to see if the blunder is returned. I suspect most here would disagree with this, but I find "time playing" quite distasteful. It's fully within the rules to attempt to win on time every game, never resigning when down huge material, rarely if ever outplaying the opponent, it's just that some players raise it to an art form.

You're never obligated to rematch. However, some players view it as common courtesy to play at least two games so that each player gets a chance with the black and white pieces.

Also, congrats to Magnus. the 60 Minutes segment wasn't particularly novel but had a lot of screen time with the new world champion. He seems like a great guy. Let's hope he doesn't go crazy.

What's this about Magnus and 60 minutes?

Magnus Carlsen just won the 2013 world chess championship against Vishy Anand.

Won? More like dominated.

Quote:

Although Anand still had a theoretical chance to level the match by winning three games in a row, most fans and pundits agreed that the match was basically over after game 9, and most journalists in the press room expected a short draw. Instead, the last game would be one of the longest in the match.